A presentation was made under a documentary credit subject to UCP 600. Whilst the beneficiary stated that the claim was compliant, the issuing bank argued that fraud was involved. It was further argued that the dispute was outside the scope of UCP 600 and, accordingly, outside the scope of the DOCDEX Rules. It was decided that the case did fall under DOCDEX and that the beneficiary made a compliant presentation. As such, the issuing bank was obligated to honour.
A credit allowed presentation of a Letter of Indemnity (LOI) instead of Bills of Lading. An LOI was presented but the issuing bank reverted stating that honour had not been effected, but without a formal notice of refusal. At a later date, the issuing bank stated that there were allegations of ‘material misrepresentations' and fraud. It was agreed that the presentation was compliant and that the issuing bank was obligated to honour.